I have to say that in large part I agree with your assesment of McCain. His military record aside, he has made political compromises which cause any sensible conservative to wonder at what he'll give up as president.

That aside, your article is idiotic and unrealistic with regards to Islam, World War I, British military history, the war in Iraq, and the realistic chances of America using force against anything we don't like. It's embarrassing to conservative thought that you can't come up with a better argument.

Your problems with a gutless airline from a gutless European culture which won't fight for common courtesy have nothing to do with Islam in general and have everything to do with the Muslims in Western Europe who are encouraged to stay there and live on welfare but not willing or permitted to assimilate. The Muslims from Iraq, Jordan, the U.S., Malaysia, Indonesia who I've met don't have the slightest trace of that attitude (regardless of the many flaws in their religion).

What else could the "pompous World War I generals" do? The weapons and equipment of that war (i.e. machine guns, limited armor protection, no wireless communication on land) favored the defensive under the conditions of trench warfare on the western front; and they didn't "continue until everyone was tired of the whole sorry business", they in fact defeated the Germans on the battlefield with American power of course, and the Treaty of Versailles and Woodrow Wilson's idiotic support for ethnic nationalism need not have led to World War II.

Churchill himself said that no other war was more unnecessary than World War II; and it would not have happened had the British and especially the French faced down the Germans in 1935(conscription), 1938(Anschluss), or 1939(all German forces fighting Poland) when the odds were overwhelmingly in their favor, or had the U.S. backed up their sanctions against Japan with any kind of effective buildup of force.

The British retreat at Dunkirk was feasible because the British people then had the guts to follow the war through and take back France eventually, and not out of line with other British defeats early in a war – if as you're implying we should "temporarily" withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan do you think there's a chance in hell we'll eventually have a victory there?

In any case your standards of victory are ridiculously high – you wouldn't have been satisfied until the Germans and Japanese were celebrating George Washington's birth and July 4.

"The military with its captive workforce, sole, almost propietary mission in life has squandered way more than most any mucked up corporate effort over the years. Maybe I’m wrong, but its apples and oranges anyways."

This is a little off topic, but having been in charge of up to $30 million in defense spending, I can say with a little authority that it is apples and oranges. Let me give you my perspective.

"To be fair," as you wish to be, you should compare military waste against non-military government waste. To begin with, you might ask why you never hear in the media about waste in non-DOD agencies. Can it be because waste in welfare spending had a “good intent”? As we discuss all this, the Berkeley, CA, public school district is trying to keep from loosing $243,000 in federal grants for gourmet lunches for students. (How much you want to bet they don’t?) This has not raised so much as an eyebrow. Contrast that against the hew and cry raised by the legendary $400 hammer, the $600 toilet seat, and the $120 diode. Consider also the lack of concern over the 5 – 6% waste Secretary of HEW Califano under President Carter admitted to. If he admitted to that much, you know it had to have been (and probably still is) a lot more. Add on to that the fact that welfare spending far outstrips Defense spending and you could conclude that welfare waste far outstrips Defense waste.

Let me conclude by saying that Defense waste is part of the strategy of defeating the enemy. Consider WW-II for example. The US was able to defeat the Axis powers mainly because it was able to out-produce them and get more equipment to the battle. Did all the weapons we produce make it to the battlefield. No, of course not. Were they “wasted”? I think not. Now consider welfare waste. There is no strategy for it other than shoveling money into the street for the sake of shoveling money into the street. It is a reward for bad behavior, to say the least; and behavior that is rewarded is likely to be repeated. But that's OK, because it "helps" people.

Enough said.

Mr Phil Jackson is right about comparing the military style leadership and civilian, pretty much apples and oranges. Although to be fair, I think if you count the wasted dollars the military has spit down the drain compared to all the corporate muck ups and criminal cases, it doesn't even compare. The military with its captive workforce, sole, almost propietary mission in life has squandered way more than most any mucked up corporate effort over the years. Maybe I'm wrong, but its apples and oranges anyways.

jfking — I don't think you and I are necessarily disagreeing. I think coming from a military background makes it harder to succeed in the business world, in part because the two worlds are so different. It has nothing to do with the core competence of the former military candidate. As for the stupidity, duplicity and greed of the civian world, again all too true, but this is only a related point. Even in a corporation where these kinds of things are minimal, the military and civilian cultures are so different that it makes integration hard. Not impossible, but difficult, unless the corporation has a military-inspired hierarchy (such as Perot systems, pilots for any major airline, etc.)

Those from the military tend to get very frustrated very quickly with the way civilians run things (incompetence and duplicity aside). On the other hand, I've seen those with a military background do quite well navigating government bureaucracies, where people from the civilian world more often than not fail. [And put a civilian in a military structure, and there will be equal frustrations and failures]. I don't want to over-draw the relationships, but I think it's a fair assessment as a general principle. Phil

This is the increasing problem I see with so-called "debate" at IC. In comment 19 Dean puts forward an intelligent set of points — one I'm somewhat sympathetic to with regard to McCain's faults and the military mindset in civilian life, though one I disagree with on broader US policy in the Middle East. It’s the basis for a real conversation.

Now Jeff rightly points out comment 11, and I’ve got to wonder what would motivate such a despicable tirade. There’s a difference between being provocative in order to make a point, and insulting decent sensibilities.

We’re at risk of turning this into the Daily Kos or Huffington Post unless people accept some responsibility for debating vigorously, but respectfully. I have to agree with Jeff on this one.

Dean, do you really stand by the “useless” comments?

As I wrote in comment 14 (it was held up in moderation to clean up the language), among the "3,000 USELESS NEW YORKERS" butchered on 9/11 by our country's enemies were 60 cops, 343 firemen, and over 2,500 innocent civilians; two of these heroes were my friends. Both served our country in peacetime (as NYC cops) and in war (one Airborne, one a Marine) and died saving other "USELESS NEW YORKERS" from the fiery inferno to which they themselves fell victim. One of these men, a Marine Sgt. Major, was also a veteran of the rescue efforts in Oklahoma City after the McVeigh (a friend of yours Dean?) bombing for which he volunteered because he saw the innocent victims in Oklahoma not as USELESS, but as American's.

Anyone who'd spit on the noble graves of these heroes by dismissing them as "USELESS" deserves scorn, not validation.

I respect your respect for McCain’s war record, but I think the rest of your assessment is absolutely correct.

As a future article I have prepared argues – the Republican Party has left the Conservatives – a little like the Democratic Party left Reagan.

If McCain wins, I think that will be the end of the Republican Party as a Home for Conservatives, and thus the end of the Republican Party as we know it.

Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com